Posted on 10/06/2005 1:41:35 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
President George W. Bush on Thursday rejected critics of the Iraq war who demand a U.S. pullout and cast the conflict as necessary to prevent Islamic militants from gaining a foothold for a sweeping empire.
"We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory," Bush said in a speech on Washington's war on terrorism.
Bush used new and more specific language in characterizing the opponents as part of an Islamic radical movement "with a clear and coherent ideology" and territorial ambitions, rather than dismissing them as the terrorist "evildoers" of his early speeches on the issue.
It was part of a White House effort to rebuild waning American support for the Iraq war amid an upsurge of violence ahead of a planned October 15 referendum on an Iraqi constitution.
Bush firmly rejected those who demand a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, saying to pull out would leave the country's fledgling government exposed to supporters of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and the group's leader in Iraq, Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
"Having removed a dictator and aided free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers dedicated to the destruction of our own country seizes control of Iraq by violence," he said.
Bush sought to put the Iraq war in a global context, calling it a central front in the war on terrorism, and accusing al Qaeda militants and their supporters of seeking to overthrow moderate Arab governments and to attack U.S. targets.
He said the United States and its allies had disrupted 10 serious al Qaeda plots since the September 11, 2001, attacks, three inside the United States.
"EVIL BUT NOT INSANE"
Bush dwelt for a good part of his speech on the aspirations of militants as he tried a new approach to convincing Americans of the seriousness of the war on terrorism.
"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that expands from Spain to Indonesia," Bush said.
Citing recent attacks in London, Sharm el-Sheikh and Bali, Bush said while the bombings appeared random, they serve a clear ideology, "a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane," and gave a new name for the ideology: Islamo-fascism.
A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll last month said only 32 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of the war, which he launched in 2003 citing the threat of weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam Hussein's government.
Since such weapons were never found, and al Qaeda followers have spilled into Iraq to fight against the Americans, Bush now calls Iraq a central focus of the war on terrorism he launched after the September 11 attacks.
His remarks were aimed at an increasingly restive American public, which is weary of daily television images of bombings from Iraq and holding funerals for the more than 1,900 Americans killed in Iraq.
"Wars are not won without sacrifice, and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve. The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we have ever faced," he said.
Democrats did not hear what they wanted from Bush. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said Bush failed to outline a strategy for achieving military, political and economic success in Iraq.
"Instead, the president continued to falsely assert there is a link between the war in Iraq and the tragedy of September 11th, a link that did not and does not exist," he said.
Bush also gave an implicit warning to Syria and Iran, accusing them of supporting radical groups.
"State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them because they're equally as guilty of murder," he said.
There was a time when the name bin Laden rarely crossed Bush's lips publicly -- partly it seemed to avoid raising the issue of why the United States had failed to track him down -- but Bush invoked the name of the elusive al Qaeda leader several times in making the case against bin Laden's style of Islam.
"Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims: 'What is good for them and what is not.' And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that this is the road to paradise, though he never offers to go along for the ride," Bush said.
First thing on the sacrifice block should be the prescription drug boondoggle. Otherwise, with all due respect, STFU Mr. President.
May I suggest Mr. President that we go on the offensive, drop more bombs, and kill more insurgents. You know...send a message?
You got it. I have seen ZERO sacrifice from ANY in Congress and the Executive.
Lead by example Bush, instead of proposing trillions in new spending at every turn.
I give his speech two thumbs up, but now it's time to follow words with action.
The ONLY people who have sacrificed anything are the troops. NO ONE in America has been asked to sacrifice a single thing.
Does anyone know when this will replay on C span???
thanks
What, he finally named the unnameable?!? No more ROP?
Lead by example Bush, instead of proposing trillions in new spending at every turn.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
HI DU troll????
Where did Reuters get that headline? I hate Reuters. The only good reason to post from them is to critique their anti-civilization bias.
That's right, therein lies the problem.
Yes, you busted me, I am a DU troll because I want LESS spending from our Republican led Gov't.
You might find this interesting.....
Who's the Real Spendthrift
I googled it and his figures appear accurate, who'd a thunk it.
Johnson - INCREASED spending 55%
Nixon - INCREASED spending 81%
Ford - INCREASED spending 23%
Carter - INCREASED spending 66%
Reagan - INCREASED spending 69%(dramatically increased defense spending to defeat USSR)
Bush I - INCREASED spending 23%
Clinton - INCREASED spending 32%
Bush II - INCREASED spending 23% (so far)
Answer: there isn't one
http://exposingtheleft.blogspot.com/2005/10/whos-real-spendthrift.html
It doesn't matter whether your criticism is coherent, conservative, legitimate or not. You have criticized the fearless leader. ;-)
Let's sacrifice the federal rebuilding of New Orleans. Private money being used for private purposes - what a concept!
First, what are those numbers in relation to? There is no sourcieng or explanation.
Are you saying the latest budget is only 23% bigger than his first budget?
It's not, and that doesn't even account for the new entitlement spending, which has yet to kick in.
Or the fact that the budget deficits for fy 03 and 04 combined is $1.1 TRILLION.
"Wars are not won without sacrifice, and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve. The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we have ever faced," he said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.